The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-06-23
REBELLION RELICS.

REBELLION RELICS.
The Attorney-Gene Advised the President
that They Could Not Be Returned.
II. v. Boyntop, in Cincinnati Commercial Gazette.
The Presidents plea of ignorance or want of
full consideration in the contemplated surrender
of the rebel flags, has suddenly been swept aside
by evidence which will startle tho country
fatty does it contradict the official explanations
which have been given. Below will be found the
copy OF official document which shows be-
yond room for question that only a few days be-
fore the date of General Drums letter in regard
to the flags, the President had referred to the
Attorney general the very question involved in
their surrender, and had been advised in writing
by Mr. Garland that the return of such property
required Congressional action. As will be seen,
there was nothing 'oraln about the transaction.
1t all in black and white. The President
submitted the case in writing, and the Attorney
general returned a written opinion.
The question at issue the return of GER
tain articles captured early in the war when the
Union troops took possession Of Arlington, the
residence of Gen. Robert f. Lee These articles
have since been on exhibition first in the Pat
Bnt Office and afterward in the National Museum.
About the time Congress adjourned application
was made from Virginia to Mr.. Goode, the as
sisrant secretary of the National Museum, for
the return of these articles The application
referred to Spencer F. Baird, secretary Of
the Smithsonian Insttutlon.nnd he formally sub
mitted the question of returning this captured
property directly to President Cleveland. The
latter in turn formally laid the question before
the Attorney general. When the flag question
was sprung the country no men were more
astonlshed than the force in the National Mu-
scum. AS a result, the transactions that had
taken place there in regard to the Lee relics
soon whispered about. and it was not long before
a copy OF the material paper in the OBJ
tanned 1t is fair to saw that there were several
refusals before an officer frank enough to furnish
it could be found. The remarkable document is
rs follows
1.-THE President:
"Sir-I have the honor to acknowledge the re-
ceipt Of your note of the 9th of April, 1887,
ferring to a communication of Spencer f.
Baird. secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,
with inclosure of letter of g. Brown Goode,
assistant secretary in charge OF the National
Museum, from which it appears that. in 1861
1862, number of articles of personal property,
of little value were removed from Arlington,
the residence of Gen. Robert E. Lee. to the
United States Patent Office. and at later date
TO the National Museum. where they now
They are highly priced by the heirs of General
Lee, their former owner, heirlooms and
msrnentoes. who ask that the relics may be de-
ivered to them No sufficient facts are stated
in the transmittas to show how the property got
into the possession Of the government or to
form basis for an opinion as to where the right
of properly is now vested. Such facts may be
inaccessible, but the possession is found in the
government. The uncertainty as to title would
render ultimate disposition OF the property a
subject more properly within the range of con-
gressional cognzance than that of the executive.
] would, therefore, respectfully suggest that the
status of the property it exists be main
tanned. and the subject of it's final disposition be
left TO Con gress for its final consideration. am,
Sir. very Respectfully.
"a II. GARLAND, Attorney general"
On the face of this formal opinion of the
Attorney general, an opinion which does him
great credit what becomes Of the declaration of
the President to the country that he had acted
in the flag matter without giving the subject
particular carei What will be tho next subter-
fuge2 Will il be claimed that he regarded flags
captured In battle az property which he could
dispose OF without the authority of Congress,
In spite of the fact that he had just been in
formed by his Attorney general that even pri-
vate relics, the mode of capture of which
not clearly understood, could not be returned
without the action of Concress2
It is well TO look at the dates The Presi-
dent, on April 8, last, submitted to the Attorney
general the question of his right to return the
Lee relics: On the 18th of April Mr. Garland
replied az above. General Drums letter pro-
posing the surrender of the battle figs was dated
April 30 The Endorsement of Secretary Endi-
colt announcing to General Drum that the
President had approved the letter OF the Adju-
tant general was dated Nav 20. The President
and his defenders were prompt to claim de-
gree of ignorance which reflected almost as
much dscredit on him as the act which he was
But will he now claim, will it be claimed
for him. that he could not carry the plain points
of the Attorney-eenerals letter on the Lee relics
in his mind from April IL to May 26l If nothing
else had fixed his mind on the matter, it would
seem rs if the facts that Mr. Garland.
With bis intimate associations with General Lee
ard the Confederacy. was yet prompt on
this of somewhat vague title to advise that
action of Congress was necessary to authorize
the return of anything taken from the Confed-
eracy, and found in the possession of the gov
eminent, would have stamped the case on his
memory. The opinion not only does honor to
Mr.. Garland, but il shows conclusivelv what his
friends have asserted. namely, that he not
consulted the flag question, and that he
knew nothing about 1t till the newspapers made
IL public. The authorized explanation, prepared
mt the White House aud furnished to the press,
makes this assertion:
THE right of the department to make these
returns being questioned by the President, such
right was distinctly asserted and presidents al
legged, and thereupon his oral consent was given
10 the proposed actions"
This could not be true without il also being
certain that the fresh opinion of the Attorney
general the Lee relics recalled TO the
Presidents mind. Why then. was the Attorney
general not consulteda Can there be tho least
doubt, in view OF the above paper, what his reply
would have been2 Was il because this surrender
had been decided that the Attorney general
was again consulteal Are all the relics and
trophies OF the rebellion to be returned or put
put of sight,
IL Is not necessary to pursue the subject The
above letter of Mr. Garland to the President
now in the records of the National Museum,
makes the case far worse for all concerned than
If there had been attempt to palm off the plea
of carelessness the country 1t Is a fatal
paper, and carries its own comment to all intel
liGent readers.
why We Should Not BE Surprised.
New York sun.
A slight reflection upon the past life of
President Cleveland will dispose of any feeling
OF surprise that may have been excited by his